The last victim of the human shield practice

Last update - 09:22 25/10/2007

The last victim of the human shield practice

By Israel Harel

In movies, when the bad guy puts a gun to the hostage's head to deter the police, we're all against him. But when we defend ourselves from Palestinian terror, that image, which the terrorists and their supporters try to portray, is not a fair comparison. If using a hostage can save soldiers trying to arrest a terrorist planning a mass terror attack, then it is necessary and should not be condemned. Even B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - cites only one case, in 2002, when wanted terrorists shot a man whom IDF soldiers were using as a shield. As far as we know, this was the only such casualty, but it was enough to make the High Court of Justice end this practice. Soldiers, however, are still being hurt by it. The last one was Brigadier General Yair Golan, the outgoing commander of the Israeli forces in Judea and Samaria, who managed, with intelligence and resolution, to foil most attempts to attack Israeli citizens. Until the camera captured an unusual incident - soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Due to the High Court's ruling, the chief of staff reprimanded Golan and decided to withhold his promotion. This is the tribute given to a man to whom many owe their lives. A considerable percentage of the petitions debated by the High Court, like the use of Palestinians as human shields, are matters of values and opinions, rather than laws. The justices rule on these matters based on their worldviews. In other words, if the High Court justices were to reflect the values and opinions of the entire population, rather than a certain sector, it is reasonable to assume that the issue of human shields would not have been even brought to court, or would have been declared legally legitimate and morally right. But the motives of bodies like Adalah, Peace Now and B'Tselem, which drag the High Court to rule on such matters every other day, are not necessarily moral. They use moralistic arguments to undermine the public's confidence in the justness of the war on terror. The danger of losing this war does not come from the banning of using human shields, but from the so-called moralistic arguments that defend this ban. The enemy, which is incapable of conducting an all-out war against us, chose terror - for it, all means are justified, including blowing up buses, banquet halls and packed nightclubs. So when we defend ourselves in the cruelest of wars, it is immoral to deny soldiers means such as human shields. The army must conduct the war against terror as it does any war - it must aim to win, and not (as one of the Israel Defense Forces' headquarters puts it) "to reduce the level of violence." This is not, and must not be, the IDF's goal, unless it intends to allow the enemy to drag out the war infinitely, i.e. until it wears us down - for this is the purpose of terror - and to make our life in this country a misery. It is no secret that we could have won some of the battles of the Second Lebanon War and have reduced the number of victims, had the commanders and soldiers not been afraid to shoot terrorists who were not wearing uniforms. It came out during the inquiries that certain commanders refrained from initiating offensives, for fear that if something were to go wrong, they would be embroiled in endless investigations and legal proceedings. Golan, it may be assumed, will be promoted eventually. The IDF needs professional, honest and moral combat commanders like him. But due to the impossible and immoral limitations placed on the army, many talented officers are unwilling to place themselves in Golan's shoes and serve in combat duty. Consequently, it is doubtful whether more commanders with his kind of personal and professional caliber will serve in the IDF.